Hl‘ \ \ l l 1 W W x \ l ‘lmll ...... am LIBRARY "01 “l Ill “I W ”H Ill II “II W lll I" ll lull ' - at: 10063 4983 M’Ch’gan St 3 1293 University This is to certify that the thesis entitled CONGRUENCE OF TEACHER, STUDENT, AND PRINCIPAL PERCEPTIONS OF THE CLASSROOM PRACTICES OF SELECTED HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEACHERS presented by Henry Greenfield has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Secondary Education and Curriculum Date October 1978 0-7639 OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY PER ITEM Return to book drop to remove this checkout from your record. Elias?! ‘U’\.-1I Iiwdllnll. Wilde!!! MIVHUV » © Copyright by HENRY GREENFIELD 1978 CONGRUENCE OF TEACHER, STUDENT, AND PRINCIPAL PERCEPTIONS OF THE CLASSROOM PRACTICES OF SELECTED HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEACHERS By Henry Greenfield A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Secondary Education and Curriculum 1978 ABSTRACT CONGRUENCE OF TEACHER, STUDENT, AND PRINCIPAL PERCEPTIONS OF THE CLASSROOM PRACTICES OF SELECTED HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEACHERS By Henry Greenfield Purpose of the Study The purpose of this descriptive study was to analyze data regarding high school English teachers' class- room practices as perceived by the teachers, their stu- dents, and their principals. An attempt was made to determine if there was congruence of perceptions between teachers and their students, and between teachers and their principals regarding the teachers' Classroom practices. Design of the Study The population of the study included students, teachers, and principals in the greater Lansing and greater Grand Rapids areas in Michigan. Fifteen high schools were selected. From each school a simple random sample deter- mined three English teachers to be surveyed. One class of each of the teachers surveyed was selected for study, according to availability when the researcher visited the school site. Henry Greenfield Fifteen principals, 45 teachers, and 935 students from high schools ranging in enrollment from 659 to 2,100 were involved in the study. Each respondent was requested to complete the 42—item Inventory of Classroom Practices, designed for this study. The data were analyzed by an items-to-test correlation (coefficient alpha) and a one- way analysis of variance. Major Findings Statistical tests revealed congruence of percep- tions in five areas: teacher and student perceptions in regard to providing a positive classroom climate, teacher and principal perceptions in regard to providing a posi- tive classroom climate, teacher and principal perceptions in regard tx>providing student—centered indirect instruction, teacher and student perceptions in regard to Promoting group Classroom interaction, and teacher and principal per- ceptions in regard to promoting group classroom interaction . Statistically significant agreement of perceptions was noted in the following areas: 1. There was a statistically significant differ- ence at the .05 level between teacher and student percep- tions of the teacher as being high, average, or low in providing a student-centered indirect approach in the classroom. Teachers who ranked themselves low and average were ranked differently by their students. Teachers who Henry Greenfield ranked themselves as high were ranked very differently by their students. 2. There was a statistically significant differ- ence at the .05 level between teacher and student per- ceptions of the teacher as being high, average, or low in providing comprehensive evaluation. The difference was least in the average and high groups. These two groups were significantly different from each other and from the low group. 3. There was a statistically significant differ- ence at the .05 level between teacher and principal per— ceptions of the teacher as being high, average, or low in providing comprehensive evaluation. In the high and average groups, there was little difference between the teachers' and principals' perceptions, and these were not significantly different from one another. However, both average and high groups were significantly different from the low group. Conclusions Within the limitations of the study, it was con- cluded that student, teacher, and principal perceptions of teachers' Classroom practices generally were congruent. The categories that showed incongruence between students and teachers were student—centered indirect instruction and evaluation and reports. Principals' perceptions were Henry Greenfield congruent with those of the teachers in all categories except evaluation and reports. Recommendations Teachers may consider using inventories similar to the one devised for this study (1) to collect data about existing conditions in their Classrooms without using an outside evaluator, (2) to help them assess growth in specific attempts to change classroom practices, or (3) to help them focus on discrepancies of viewpoints. Research should be undertaken (l) to discover if there is a relationship between congruence of teacher and student perceptions and affective and/or cognitive growth; (2) to discover if perceptions about English teachers' classroom practices are congruent with those regarding the classroom practices of teachers of other disciplines . (math, science, social studies); and (3) to discover if other variables, such as sex, training, and experience, affect congruence of teacher, student, and principal per- ceptions. To My Family: Geri, Carl and Sharron, Jena, Jamey, Jason, Jennifer Gary and Lori, Kathy and Floyd iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am indebted to many people who gave much encour- agement, support, and aid during the many phases of the doctoral program. I sincerely appreciate the support of my guidance committee: Dr. Lois Bader, chairperson of the committee, whose unselfishness and concern, insight, unusual knowl— edge of the reading area, and constant encouragement made this period of my life a full and rewarding one. Dr. George Myers, a long-time friend, whose advice, suggestions, and encouragement continue to be important to me and for whom I have the greatest admiration and respect. Dr. Louise Sause, whose kind support and encour- agement, advice, unselfishness, and consideration helped me a great deal. Dr. Roy Wesselman, who gave me constructive assis- tance, generous amounts of time, and an opportunity to grow. I would also like to express my gratitude to David Solomon, Office of Research Consultants, for his assistance beyond what was required of him; the students, teachers, and principals who participated in the study; the Board of Education of the Antelope Valley Union High iv School District for their encouragement and financial assistance; and the faculty, staff, and student body of Palmdale High School for their support. I appreciate the love and encouragement of these special friends: Tom and Bernadette Im.Haie,Gerard and Debbie Reaume, Richard and Pat Bonczkowski, Jerry Ellman, Bill and Madge Phipippus, Oscar and Virginia Greenfield, Loyd. and Katherine Dunn, and Jim and Dorothy Siegel. I am grateful to my parents, children and grand- children, and family for their unselfish support and love, and especially to my beautiful wife, Geri, for her unfail- ing devotion and the greatest effort possible. Finally, I am grateful to my Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, who inspire and sustain me in all that I do. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Chapter I. THE PROBLEM 1 Background . . . 1 Importance of the Study 3 Purpose of the Study 4 Definition of Terms 4 Research Questions . . 5 Limitations of the Study 6 Overview . . . . . 8 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 9 Introduction . . . 9 Instructional Procedures 9 Teacher Characteristics . . . . . 9 Teacher Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Teacher Warmth . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Group Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . l7 Lesson Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Group Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Group Function . . . . . . . . . . 19 Teacher and Pupil ROles. . . . . . . . . 19 Location Features . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Classroom Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Classroom Control . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Evaluation and Reports . . . . . . . . . . 30 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 The Population . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Selection of the Sample . . . . . . . . . 35 Construction of the Instrument . . . . . . 36 Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . 37 Administration of the Inventory . . . . . 38 Method of Reporting Results . . . . . . . 38 vi Chapter IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Introduction . Research Questions and ReSults Summary V. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction . . . Major Results and Discussion Classroom Climate (Teachers and Students) . Classroom Climate (Teachers and. Principals) Instructional Procedures (Teachers and Students) . Instructional Procedures (Teachers and Principals) Group Interaction (Teachers and Students) . Group Interaction (Teachers and Principals) Comprehensive Evaluation and Reports (Teachers and Students) Comprehensive Evaluation and Reports (Teachers and Principals) Conclusions Conclusion Regarding InventOries Implications for Practice . . Recommendations for Further Research APPENDIX BIBLIOGRAPHY vii Page 41 41 56 58 58 58 58 59 60 62 64 65 65 67 68 69 69 7O 72 82 Table 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES Reliability Coefficients for the Inventory of Classroom Practices ANOVA Source Data for Providing a Positive Classroom Climate: Teachers and Students ANOVA Source Data for Providing a Positive Classroom Climate: Teachers and Principals ANOVA Source Data for Providing a Student- Centered Indirect Approach (Instructional Procedures): Teachers and Students) ANOVA Source Data for Providing a Student- Centered Indirect Approach (Instructional Procedures): Teachers and Principals ANOVA Source Data for Providing a Student- Centered Indirect Approach (Classroom Control): Teachers and Students ANOVA Source Data for Providing a Student— Centered Indirect Approach (Classroom Control): Teachers and Principals ANOVA Source Data for Promoting Group Interaction: Teachers and Students ANOVA Source Data for Providing Group Interaction: Teachers and Principals ANOVA Source Data for Providing Comprehensive Evaluation and Reports: Teachers and Students . . . . . . . . ANOVA Source Data for Providing Comprehensive Evaluation and Reports: Teachers and Principals . . . . . viii Page 39 42 43 44 44 45 45 46 47 48 48 Figure LIST OF FIGURES Congruence of Teacher, Student, and Principal Perceptions: Classroom Climate Congruence of Teacher, Student, and Principal Perceptions: Student-Centered Indirect Instruction (Instructional Procedures) Congruence of Teacher, Student, and Principal Perceptions: Student-Centered Indirect Instruction (Classroom Control) Congruence of Teacher, Student, and Principal Perceptions: Group Interaction Congruence of Teacher, Student, and Principal Perceptions: Evaluation and Reports . . . . . . ix Page 50 51 53 54 55 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Background Educators may not be aware of their influence on students and the way students perceive them. Amidon (1965) believed teachers should become more aware of the impor- tance of their Classroom behavior. He wrote: The primary responsibility of the classroom teacher is to guide the learning activities of children. In the process of this interaction he influences the children, sometimes with planned behavior, sometimes consciously without planning, but often without awareness of his behavior and the effect of this behavior on the learning process (p. 1). Students may judge teachers on the basis of teacher performance in the classroom. However, what the teacher expects to be perceived in the classroom might not neces— sarily be what the students actually experience. Hence it may be important for teachers to be aware of their influence and how others perceive them during classroom instruction. Amidon (1965) stated: The teacher, then, is continually exerting influence on the children and on the learning situation. But how much knowledge does he have about the methods of influence he is using? How much does he know about how children perceive his behavior? And how much control is he able to exert over his behavior in the classroom? By studying his own behavior in some sys- tematic, objective manner, the teacher may gain further insight into his influence (p. l). 1 Therefore it seems important that a study be con— ducted to determine the congruence of teacher and student perceptions of teacher classroom performance. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study was to analyze student, teacher, and principal perceptions of classroom practices employed by selected high school English teachers. An attempt was made to determine if congruence existed among these individuals' perceptions of teacher Classroom prac- tices in five categories: instructional procedures, group interaction, classroom climate, classroom control, and evaluation and reports. Five major classroom practice categories were selected as the areas in which to obtain perceptions about teachers' classroom performance. They are: instructional procedures, group interaction, classroom climate, classroom control, and evaluation and reports. These categories were selected because of their prominence in research dealing with classroom characteristics (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974; Gump, 1967; Flanders, 1970). Questions pertaining to instructional procedures and classroom control were asked to determine whether the teacher was viewed as providing student-centered indirect instruction. Classroom climate was examined to determine if the teacher provided a positive climate. Group interaction dealt with the interaction provided by teachers in the classroom. Evaluation and reports were concerned with whether the teacher was perceived as providing compre- hensive evaluation procedures. These five areas were formulated into a list of statements regarding classroom practices, to elicit students' and principals' perceptions of the teachers' behavior in the specific categories. Teachers were asked to respond to the same questions so that their perceptions could be compared with those of their students and prin- cipals. Principals' perceptions were included in the study to compare their views with those of the students and teachers. This appeared to be a logical decision because not only are principals directly involved with teachers and students, but they are the chief evaluators. of teachers and are responsible for hiring and retaining them. Importance of the Study The study is important because it may provide an objective way to examine student and principal perceptions of teachers' classroom behavior. The study may offer a basis for clarifying teachers', students', and principals' perceptions. As a result of such clarification, teachers may choose to alter or delete some of their classroom practices if they feel congruence of perceptions about such practices is important for cognitive or affective growth. Definition of Terms The following terms are defined in the context in which they are used in this study: Perception: In Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1949), perception is defined as "an immediate or intuitive cognition of judgment often implying nice observation and subtle discrimination” (p. 624). It is in this context that the term is used in the present study. Positive climate: Positive climate is the warm atmosphere created by the teacher's classroom practices. Classroom practices: Classroom practices are procedures used by teachers for the purpose of instruction. Teacher-centered direct approach: This approach is one in which the teacher chooses to control behavior and instruction by lecturing, giving instructions, and selecting work to be done. At times the teacher may criticize the students and justify his own authority (Flanders, 1970). Student-centered indirect approach: This approach is one in which the teacher chooses to control behavior and instruction by allowing students to construct rules for correct behavior and assist in planning when and how work is to be done. Additionally, the teacher seeks the opinions of students, accepts their ideas, and praises or encourages them (Flanders, 1970). Comprehensive evaluation: Comprehensive evaluation is a method by which the teacher judges a student's effort and achievement. Conversely, students are allowed to judge the teacher and themselves. Group interaction: Group interaction is the pro— cess by which individuals reciprocally act upon one another. Research Questions In an attempt to gain further insight into the congruence of student, principal, and teacher perceptions of teachers' classroom practices, the following research questions were considered: 1. Is there a difference between teacher and student perceptions of the teacher as being high, average, or low in providing a positive classroom climate? 2. Is there a difference between teacher and principal perceptions of the teacher as being high, average, or low in providing a positive classroom climate? 3. Is there a difference between teacher and student perceptions of the teacher as being high, average, or low in providing student— centered indirect instruction? Is there a difference between teacher and principal perceptions of the teacher as being high, average, or low in providing student- centered indirect instruction? Is there a difference between teacher and student perceptions of the teacher as being high, average, or low in promoting group inter— action in the classroom? Is there a difference between teacher and principal perceptions of the teacher as being high, average, or low in promoting group inter- action in the classroom? Is there a difference between teacher and student perceptions of the teacher as being high, average, or low in providing comprehen— sive evaluation procedures? Is there a difference between teacher and principal perceptions of the teacher as being high, average, or low in providing comprehen- sive evaluation procedures? Limitations of the Study The following limitations were noted in regard to the study: 1. The research was limited to the reported per- ceptions of high school English teachers, students, and principals from selected high schools in greater Grand Rapids, Michigan, and greater Lansing, Michigan. 2. No restrictions were made regarding the size of a high school, as long as it had four or more English teachers with whom the random selection process could be applied. 3. The research data were limited to the "fre- quency” portion of the Inventory. 4. No attempt was made to generalize beyond the study sample. It is difficult to establish perceptions as fact, regardless of the sample and the instrument used. Therefore, the data produced by the Inventory must be con- sidered in light of this limitation. 5. The personal feelings of the respondents might have prevented them from responding objectively to the questions in the Inventory. Students and principals might have thought they could reward or punish the teacher by their answers, depending upon how they felt at the time they completed the Inventory. Also, respondents' possible misunderstanding of the questions must be considered a limitation. One does not know if the respondents really understood the questions. Overview Included in Chapter I werea brief background of the study, the purpose and importance of the study, definitions of important terms used, research questions to be answered, and limitations of the study. In Chapter II a review of the literature related to the present research is presented. The chapter con- tains a discussion of the five major categories of class- room practices selected for analysis in this study. Chapter III contains a description of the mate- rials and procedures employed in the study. The design and methodology of the research are discussed in detail. An analysis of the data and findings of the study are included in Chapter IV. Chapter V provides a summary and discussion of the findings and conclusions drawn from the study. Impli- cations of the inquiry and suggestions for future research are also indicated. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction The purpose of the study was to analyze student, teacher, and principal perceptions of the classroom prac- tices employed by selected high school English teachers. The review of the literature focuses on five major areas selected on the basis of their importance to the classroom setting. These areas are: instructional procedures, group interaction, classroom climate, classroom control, and evaluation and reports. The five categories of classroom practices reviewed in this chapter were the major topics of concern in com- paring the perceptions of the respondents. The litera— ture pertaining to these five categories was used in constructing the items for the Inventory devised for this study. Instructional Procedures Teacher Characteristics As a result of her research on teacher character- istics, Kleinfeld (1975) classified teachers according to four types of behavior: lO Traditionalists (Professional Distance-Active Demandingness): "These teachers ignore the interpersonal dimensions of the classroom, which they consider a profes- sionally illegitimate area of concern.” Sophisticates (Professional Distance-Passive Under- standing): "Their professional distance is not coldness but sophisticated reserve. . . . They prefer a discussion class where students can discover intellectual concepts for themselves." Sentimentalists (Personal Warmth-Passive Under- standing): ”These teachers tend to be extremely warm, kindly people who find it difficult to make any demands upon any students." Warm Demanders (Personal Warmth-Active Demanding— ness): "These teachers spend a substantial amount of time establishing positive interpersonal relationships, not only between teachers and students but also within the student group." Upon establishing rapport, the teachers become demanding, but their demands are always accompanied by a warm smile, gentle teasing, and other forms of gentle support. Although her research did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that those teacher types exist, Klein- feld's work is pertinent to this study because she con- ceptualized and defined types of teacher behaviors. The 11 Traditionalist and the Sophisticate may be associated with directness and a teacher-centered approach, whereas the Sentimentalist and the Warm Demander may be associated with indirectness and a student-centered approach. In addition, the Traditionalist and the Sophisticate may be associated with criticism, whereas the Sentimentalist and the Warm Demander may be associated with teacher warmth, including praise and acceptance of pupils' ideas. Ryans' (1960) study of teacher characteristics involved more than 100 research projects and 6,000 teachers in 1,700 schools. The researcher attempted to identify and analyze patterns Of classroom behavior, attitudes, viewpoints, and intellectual and emotional qualities that may characterize teachers. One outcome of the study was the identification of three patterns of teacher behavior: Pattern Xo--warm, understanding, friendly versus aloof, egocentric, restricted teacher behavior. Pattern Yo--responsible, businesslike, systematic versus evading, unplanned, slipshod teacher behavior. Pattern Zo--stimulating, imaginative, surgent versus dull, routine teacher behavior. In addition, Ryans investigated other dimensions of teacher characteristics. He found: (1) The attitudes of elementary school teachers toward pupils, administrators, 12 fellow teachers, and nonadministrative personnel were markedly more favorable than were those Of secondary school teachers. (2) Actual pupil behavior in the class- room (based upon observers' assessments) did not appear to be related to the teachers' attitudes. (3) The educa- tional viewpoints expressed by secondary school teachers were more traditional, while those of elementary teachers were less traditional. (4) The verbal understanding scores (based on vocabulary and verbal analogy items) of secon- dary school teachers were significantly higher than those of elementary school teachers; on this measure English and foreign language teachers surpassed teachers from all other subject-matter areas within the secondary school. (5) Male teachers at both the elementary and secondary school levels appeared to be markedly more emotionally stable than female teachers (p. 567). Teacher Behavior Different terms have been used in describing teacher behavior. Behavior is termed autocratic or demo- cratic (Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939), dominative or integrative (Anderson, 1945), teacher-centered or learner-centered (Withall, 1949). Flanders (1970) developed an instrument for observing classroom behavior. From his research on "direct" and "indirect" influence and his Interaction 13 Analysis Categories, much has been contributed to the understanding of teacher behavior. Dunkin and Biddle (1974) discussed 100 studies that examined indirectness with regard to its process occurrence. They stated that teacher behavior is predomi- nantly direct and that pupils speak publicly in the class- room not more than 25 percent of the time. Data regarding indirect teachers are conflicting. With regard to predictability-process relationships, Dunkin and Biddle (1974) indicated that indirect teachers are more likely than direct teachers to be judged superior by others, to score higher on the National Teachers Exami- nations (history and philosophy), to be traditionally trained, and to be male. Additionally, they are more likely to earn higher scores on the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory Scale, to have greater ego strength, to be less authoritarian, to be more likely to have human- istic attitudes toward pupils, and to have higher expec— tations for pupil achievement. However, conflicting data have indicated that indirect teachers are not likely to earn higher scores on the MTAI Scale, are not more likely to have humanistic attitudes toward pupils, and do not have higher expectations for pupil achievement (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974). 14 Experimental studies have shown there is no rela- tionship between teacher indirectness and the achievement of average pupils (Amidon & Flanders, 1967; Carline, 1970; Gunnison, 1968; Herman, Potterfield, Dayton, & Amershek, 1969; Rian, 1960). But Alexander (1970) and Schentz (1963) found that high teacher indirectness raises the manipulative performance of average pupils. Also, Amidon and Flanders (1961) reported high teacher indirectness slightly raises the achievement level of dependent-prone pupils. Additionally, Gunnison (1968) found that high teacher indirectness improves pupil attitudes toward the teacher. Good and Brophy's (1972) study, concerned with the influence of pupil conduct on teacher behavior, indi- cated that low pupil achievement produces greater direct- ness than does high pupil achievement. With regard to pupil achievement, several studies have shown that teacher directness produces significant achievement, whereas other studies have indicated that indirectness contributes significantly to achievement. Strozak (1972) and Wolfson (1970) found that pupils whose teachers exhibited a high rate of indirect to direct techniques produced significantly higher achievement scores than students whose teachers used a high ratio of direct to indirect techniques. 0n the other hand, Cleminson (1972) reported that pupils taught by 15 teacher-oriented, large-group instruction seemed to show higher achievement than those taught by student- oriented, small-group instruction. Calfee's (1976) study, which was designed to document the classroom activities of teachers, student groups and individual students, indicated that reading and language arts are usually associated with direct instruc— tion, whereas mathematics lessons are likely to be under the students' control. Teacher Warmth Teacher warmth includes praise, acceptance of pupils'ideas, and criticism. Praise.—-Studies by Altman (1970), Dahllof and Lundgren (1970), Flanders (1970), Furst and Amidon (1967), Lohman and Rough (1976), Perkins (1964), and Tisher (1970) have shown that, in standard classrooms, teachers use praise sparingly. Silberman (1969) and Good and Brophy (1973) found that teachers give more praise to high-achieving pupils, whom they say they favor, and to whom they feel more attached and less indifferent. Flanders (1970), Soar, Soar, and Rogasta (1971), and Wright and Nuthall (1970) determined that high incidence of teacher praise is asso- ciated with greater pupil achievement. In contrast, 16 several studies have indicated that praise is unrelated to pupil achievement (Harris & Server, 1966; Hunter, 1968; Wallen, 1966). Acceptance of pupils' ideas.--According to a number of researchers, teachers accept pupils' ideas less than 8 percent of the time (Dahllof & Lundgren, 1970; Furst & Amidon, 1967; Tisher, 1970). Flanders (1970) and Soar (1966) reported that teachers' acceptance of pupils' ideas was unrelated to pupil achievement. Yet Perkins (1965) found teacher acceptance of pupils' ideas to be directly associated with pupil achievement. Hughes (1973) dis- dovered that low teacher acceptance and high teacher praise following correct responses increased pupil achieve- ment more than did high acceptance and low praise following correct responses. Criticism.—-On the average, teachers use criticism as a classroom practice less than 6 percent of the time (Altman, 1970; Lohman & Hough, 1967; Perkins, 1964). Medley and Hill (1970) found that higher teacher scores on NTE English and literature examinations were associated with greater teacher use of criticism. Rubovits and Maehr (1971) discovered that teacher dogmatism, as measured by the Rokeach Scale, was unrelated to the teachers' use of criticism. Conversely, Rowe (1973) found that teachers' dogmatism, as measured by the same 17 scale, was associated with greater use of criticism. Also, Good and Brophy (1972) and Silberman (1969) found that higher teacher rejection of pupils was associated with greater use of criticism. They also found that higher teacher indifference to pupils was associated with lower use of criticism. A number of research efforts have revealed that teachers' expectations for pupil achievement were unrelated to their use of criticism (Cornbleth, Davis, & Button, 1972; Evertson, Brophy, & Good, 1972, 1973; Kranz, Wilber, and Fishell, 1970). On the other hand, other researchers have found that higher teacher expectations for pupil achievement were associated with teachers' use of less criticism (Dalton, 1969; Medinnus & Unruh, 1971; Rowe, 1973). Finally, Cook (1967), Felsenthal (1970), and Spaulding (1973) discovered that greater teacher criticism was associated with lower pupil achievement. Group Interaction Teachers' classroom practices may affect interac- tion between teachers and students and among the students themselves. Soar (1966) wrote, "The most effective learn- ing depends on the tension the child feels, the emotional climate and the teacher control present in the classroom" (p. 10). These elements may contribute to group interac- tion in the classroom setting. 18 Research concerning five categories of classroom group interaction--lesson format, group structure, group function, teacher and pupil roles, and location features—- was considered relevant to the present study. Lesson Format Studies by Gump (1967) and Perkins (1964, 1965) indicated that primary-school students spend most of their time in seatwork and class recitation, which may inhibit interaction. Adams and Biddle (1970) concluded that much class time was spent in lecturing, questions, responses, and directives. Dunkin and Biddle (1974) stated, "Not surprisingly, subject matter is found to affect the lesson format, with mathematics featuring a Closer, more formal relationship between group function and structure than social studies" (p. 209). Group Structure Research by Adams and Biddle (1970), Hogan (1973), and Hill and Furst (1969) has indicated that much of the classroom day is spent in whole-class activities. Subject matter does affect group structure. More peripheral groups and noninvolved persons participate in social studies than in mathematics lessons. Additionally, class- rooms are more likely to become group organized as pupils reach the higher grades. Classrooms with computer-assisted 19 programs have more teacher interaction with pupils than do classes without such programs. Teachers' age and sex both appear to influence group structure. Adams and Biddle (1970) and Gump (1967) reported that pupils are likely to be involved in small groups. Intellectualization takes place in peripheral groups, but nonrelevant subject matter is included there also. GroupiFunction Group function, the purpose for which the class was formed, may play an important role with regard to interac— tion. Studies by Hogan (1973) and Hill and Furst (1969) indicated that most school time is taken up with academic lessons rather than with their planning or structuring by pupils and teachers; as a result, interaction:usdiminished. Teacher and Pupil Roles A teacher's control ideology may determine the nature of the verbal behavior he/she displays. This beha- vior could affect the quality and quantity of interaction in the classroom. Rexford, Willower, and Lynch (1972) studied the verbal aspect of teacher control. Their findings showed that teachers who had a custodial ideology (maintenance of order, distrust of pupils, and a moralistic approach to pupil control) were more direct in their verbal behavior than were teachers with a humanistic 20 ideology (accepting, trustful, and optimistic concerning students' ability to be self-disciplinary and responsible). However, the hypothesis that custodially oriented teachers would employ a larger percentage of teacher talk failed to reach the .05 significance level. Wrape (1971) also investigated the subject of verbal interaction. However, he looked at the influence of these verbal student—teacher interactions on both the subject-matter achievement and the self-concept of intermediate-level students. He found there were no statistically significant differences in achievement outcomes among students of above—average, average, or below-average levels of intelligence, nor were there significant differences between students of high or low levels of achievement. An important aspect of Wrape's study was that high subject—matter learning was directly related to average teacher interaction. Also, for students with above-average and average IQ's, the highest mean scores were associated with the teacher's interaction pattern, which was average. A direct interaction pattern for students with below-average IQ's produced the highest mean subject achievement. None of the patterns was found to be "best" in terms of effects on pupil achievement. 21 Smith (1971) studied total teacher behavior as it relates to student-teacher interaction. He concluded that teachers use different patterns of behavior when working with students of different achievement levels and that students react to their assigned activities in different ways, depending on the pattern Of classroom organization. With regard to teacher roles, Hill and Furst (1969) and Bellack et al. (1966) indicated that teachers spend most of their time as recitation or discussion lead— ers, supervisors of action, and informers; they are not directly involved in classroom events. Concerning pupil roles, pupils spend most of their time listening, watching, reading, and writing (Perkins, 1964; Gump, 1967), Dah110f and Lundgren (1970) and Power (1971) reported that interaction is paramount in the pupil role. Yet teachers verbalize 60 percent of the utterances in the lesson, whereas students verbalize only 40 percent. Location Features Innes' (1973) study of the environmental forces in open and closed classroom settings revealed that beha- vior in open settings was characterized by more social interaction, more interaction when peers led each other into activities, and less casual behavior. 22 Student location in the classroom may affect the- amount of interaction that occurs. As early as 1934, Davis (1964) discovered that pupils located around the periphery of the classroom were more likely to be spec- tators and less involved than more centrally located students. Adams and Biddle (1970) found that the majority of "emitters" and "targets," teachers or pupils, were located at the front and center of the classroom. Hence the teacher may be able to control the amount of student interaction by controlling the location of chairs or desks in the classroom. Classroom Climate The climate of the classroom may be influenced by the teacher's classroom practices, some of which might stimulate the growth of personal relationships between student and teacher. Rogers (1969) noted: "The facili- tation of significant learning results from certain atti- tudinal qualities which exist in the personal relationship between the facilitator and the learner" (p. 106). He identified the following qualities as ones that facili- tate learning: realness, prizing, acceptance, trust, and empathetic understanding. Another aspect of classroom climate is pupil behavior. McDonald (1972) investigated the influence of teacher and pupil perceptions on classroom behavior. 23 Specifically, he hypothesized that pupils who liked the teacher or who felt the teacher liked them would be warmer toward the teacher than pupils who disliked or felt they were disliked by the teacher. Analysis of the data indicated that pupils did not respond differently to the teacher on the basis of their perceptions about liking or being liked. Rather, McDonald found that pupils were generally neutral in their responses. Teacher praise plays an important part in the overall climate of the classroom. The results of Vakil's (1970) doctoral study showed that when people are rewarded with praise in the presence of others, both the receiver of the reward and those present when the reward is given develop positive attitudes. Pupils whose teachers used praise and encouragement had a positive attitude toward those teachers and also developed positive attitudes toward other pupils in the classroom. In research he conducted in 1971, Hardy evaluated 36 high school students to determine the effects of praise as a behavior modification approach. The results indicated that verbal praise was not a statistically significant generalized reinforcer. Also, individual teacher differ- ences significantly affected verbal and hand-raising responses. These responses, in turn, affected teacher image. In addition, verbal and hand-raising responses were correlated with study habits and teacher image. 24 Dunkin and Biddle (1974), in reviewing numerous studies dealing with classroom climate, made the follow— ing remarks regarding praise (or approval) and teacher acceptance of student ideas and criticism (or disapproval): Praise and acceptance occur but infrequently, but so does criticism. Teacher use of praise and criti- cism are strongly associated with teacher attitudes toward, and expectations for pupils, while evidence concerning these matters is missing for teacher acceptance. Experimental training appears to have the effect of inducing greater teacher acceptance, while few effects are reported for either praise or criticism. More relations are reported for the effects of criticism of product variables than for either praise or acceptance (p. 127). Marshall (1972) investigated the classroom climate of 192 Sioux Indian pupils with respect to achievement and attitudes of alienation toward school. He hypothesized that the indirect teaching method would be met with reduced levels of alienation, greater achievement motiva- tion, and more positive attitudes toward school. Find- ings indicated that intense manifestations of alienation, lack of motivation, and dislike of school were related to the use of narrow recall questions or situations demand— ing student response to such questions. Study findings also showed that school became increasingly more meaning- ful and useful when the students were given an opportunity to initiate their own questions and ideas for consideration. The general patterns appeared to support increased indirect teacher influence, leading to silent study and contemplation. 25 In Reynolds' (1974) study comparing one open school and one traditional school, data did not provide support for either open or traditional instructional programs. However, evidence suggested that the open classroom instruc- tional program effectuated positive changes in the affec- tive areas of self-concept and attitude toward school. Students in both instructional programs performed equally well in the achievement of basic skills. Classroom Control The term Classroom control may infer that the teacher controls the events and students in some way. In a sense, the teacher may do this when he adopts classroom practices that may determine the kind of control he has in the school setting. An important aspect of classroom control is "direc- tiveness," that is, the amount of teacher talk (such as giving directions and instructions) as opposed to the amount of student talk allowed by the teacher (including student-initiated talk). Dunkin and Biddle (1974) compiled the findings of 25 studies concerned with directiveness as an aspect of classroom control. They reported the fol- lowing: 1. Teacher talk comprised at least half of all time spent in normal classroom interaction (Dahllof & Lundgren, 1970;Furst & Amidon, 1967). The amount of 26 teacher talk was unrelated to pupil achievement (Flanders, 1970; Sharp, 1966; Wright & Nuthall, 1970). 2. Teacher questions, teacher lecturing, and teachers' use of directions comprised about 30 percent of classroom time (Furst, 1967; Furst & Amidon, 1967). According to Amidon and Giammatteo (1967) and Pankratz (1967), teachers who were rated as "superior" lectured for shorter periods of time and gave fewer directions than those who received lower ratings. 3. Pupil talk comprised only one-fifth to one- third of all classroom interaction time (Furst, 1967). It appears that pupil talk declines with advancing grade levels (Furst & Amidon, 1967). Teachers who were rated "superior” allowed more student talk in their classrooms, according to research conducted by Amidon and Giammatteo (1967). However, various studies have indicated that the amount_au. noun—ms guam segue ecu muses poco_uo=gume. mom: Lacuna» as» .q— .oeoe an cu m. a. cog: ecu .ocoe as cu m. a. so: .ocoe us ca sec: poogum c~_a APO; cu mucoeaum wrap—o Lacuna» on» .m— .mo:o_=:uoa mev>—0m.ew—aocn museum» Lacuna» asp .N. .s».=0.cc.u «>8; as: mucussum Omega cu assuagmu._ augagwucp a» to: accuse» Lagoon» esp .acgu came as: omega cu m___xm mc—xoOAA moguuou sesame“ use .c. o p p .303» new: as: amaze no app—gm m:.cuum_— mugunmu goguaaa ugh .m .sogu sum: as: mucmeaum omega a» m_—_xm o=.u.sz muzuomu Lacuna» ash .m .30:» some as: mucueaum Omega cu m——.xw me_eous mucosa» smegma» as» .s .uuo .mgOuuonasn eaogco>o .mm=_esooog can» .ma_cume_,e .s_.m a mom: Lmsuuuu ugh . .guoosaaa co.mm=um_u tea .Lmzuea .eo_amu=c a mom: Lozuouu ogp . m m .m=o_uuue0musn ouauuo— mum: guzuoou 0:» .c .Jcoz m.u=oe:um guoo mma_gumugn ecu manoema.e sogouma ugh .m N .a' some cg: mmozu cu ape: paaew>vecp mm>wa Lagoon“ ugh . .mma_u as» e, Locum: guns an vooumcocca mum auguscapmmn sec: osamc_ cu ugommo co magma Luguouu use .— muaaamuczm 4¢o~zm>zu z< 73 7W4 $531 aaou PaleliPS JBAON [18493 sawlaawos “3130 SKEMlV "mess uum a» use_ e_:o3 _ uususuuuss ”was.ss umusa muoe susuuuu use stuamusd .m:___usw use .mses.u3 .aswcuus mu spam .m—__sm uemus s_ s—us cuus cuss—.su Leus» Lussusx secs «gauges msu— susuouu use .ssp: sxo Leusu umuan musucaum us» muu— susuuuu use .asass ma=.su sun s.smuoo scucssm us» a. su>u sue: uses sue s'uuuu mu>ea Lusuuuu use .musuuus us mssueaum so musugun o» mms_ss u>_uemos mxom so mus.sx susuuuu use .ssox .uucucasm mucosa so uses: us sus: ssusm-msou we susuuuu use .susouus use usuaeuuu o» «usuvasm so» suesaususao :u muce>csa Lusuuuu use mezonwu az< zo—e<=s<>m .meuesoss usussao uo scsmmaumec so» ue_u axo—_u susuuuu use A.usu .mms_uuu§ eusgoese .mu.suus ..u... soosmmu_u us» s. as.~._u.uom see us.» mac—pa uusuuuu use .mueu_>_uou sooummu—u s. uuunwuessua 8» s_=u.cc_u a. s=_u as: mucueauw u>_o>=. on mu.su .usuauu use .mssueaum Russo Ease a.us guesses mu>_umsusu as see: mssueaum mus susuuus use .azcsa usu mu mus—u us» as.m: muuauums. susuuus use .mus_—uuu .msusuo ecusmsusca sou suss sass om mu_os seusuee_v use you as mssuvssm so» mus—u s. us.» muve>osn susuuuu use .mnaosu _—uam s. os_suoz muonsaousu susuuus use .mssucasm susso ecu mssuuasm uss ecu susuuuu uss suuzsus soesuususse muonsaousu susuuuu use zo_eu<¢upz_ Hausa ~ uass .< Esau 715 5581 840“ 031131125 JaAaN [[8493 “3140 SKDMlV samgiamos ”mess uum as us__ peso: _ uususueuss "mosesu unuss muoc susuuus use xusuzmusu .musuezum eo mouse mum: susuuus use .uuu .uue—aosm m.usucaum u so uses mes useuuaa so .ose—eem .cuus mes scenes: es usessusom uaoso coca euue ueuvasm use use: as muesu susuuu» use .uuu ..us as .ueuusm us.:oe. s.uuuso us.=o» ssesa _: ..:oa us__ _: "us_e wasps“ muses: so mean uususuu use .A.uuu ..u5 o» _u_uuum us.:c>: :.usee aseoe us.=c>x =.ssu_s eeu m.uuse: ..u.ev ususuausaousu we meson mum: susuauu u4e .s.s as s..» muse cuss musueaum mes eo suou cu ee_=eusuu msusm.e susuuus use .mu.aou euuoeusueoosum-sos sacs» gasessuu. see us.» axe-ea uusuuus use .musuczum use see: smsu— use usOH cu mus—e gusunue use .eaesuusu me susuuuu use .mmu—u use as segues: «3..» susuuuu use meusus so she: soon use «users mu>ea susuauu use .u.:u_=osm muss muses» useos seem as mssueasm meeuu e_su.:a susuuus use .mee>ususmes sue mueseusus use>ea cuss gene we susuuuu use .musueaum use mus._ ass .ue mucucaum was: as human muum susuouu use .mumesu cuesoss a sus: .osu .eoos use use>uue .soosmma_u use se usesuu .muou—e>eua coosumuu mu scam sous usu ea mu-as uuasumsou a—us cu musuesam axe—ea susuuuu use somezcu scammm_uuu cuss—us susuo use musum eusoeuuauumee um: _ .ucoc us as we a. sus: use .usoc us as we a. :os .ucou us ca sue: ecosum sues a-us cs mssuvaum sue—u _ .muacessuua ase>eom.su_sosa suuus _ .s.suu as: mssueasm umosu as usauusuuee ausnuuus. as gas suuuul_ .auss vuus cs3 musucasm umosu as meeesm asesuuam suouu _ .tusu euus as: masucaum umosu a» meeesm as—suumee suuus _ .cusu uuus as: musuezsm umose o» meeesm aseueux suuuu _ .Eusu euu: as: «saunasm unuse cu meeesm useusus suauu _ .so_uu:sumse s. sea a» msosuunosa unussu>o use .msuuscuuc uses .ma_uamE——e .mI—ee um: _ .ssuxmmu—u «maumee ou musuezam uuu as msceumuaa sue _ .mso—ususumuss uuasuue um: e .sso: m.ssue=sm susu usesumuus use umosmueu e .3. sum: as: Success“ owns» an a.os _8=S.>.c=_ 8,.s _ .mmueu use ea Lusaue souu as 3322...: use musgmemmu to: ugam use: 3 >5 _ muzaomuczm sz— z< .<.x .m.u\.<.m "coeuauavm 7”? 5381 931151395 3J0” -- Jana" [[8483 samiiamog 031M) chMlv "mese.um: ea us._ v.38: _ uucucueuse "mm=.se «Rose as _ mocuemusm .mce—euem ecu .oceueur .ac_eeuc we seem .meeesm O_mes c. e_us euuc cuseeesu seuss cussus: gees mucucue su— _ .stoz :38 L_use «seas mucueaem use so. _ .ssees moses» sue e.cmuee scueeum use .— cu>u see: egos see seeusu u>em _ .seeue _ mucueeem ee mucusue eu muses» u>_semee hum Le uses: a .ssez .mecueeem uecca so see: _ cuss scuememcee so _ .cuseeuu use uses—u>u ea mecueeum see eu—ceeceeee cu uee>ese _ mexcemz oz< zc_e<=s<>u .msu_sece ecucsee ee ceemmeumee see uses see—u e .A.ueu .moceuuus eesLeece .mueucee ..u.—v seesmme—u use ce sac—~—_eeuem. new use» seeps _ .mu—u_>euue seecmmu_u ce useeeueasue es u—eueeeee a. use; es: mucueesm u>_e>ce ea ecu _ .mecueeem cusue sec» e—us seessex mu>eumeuss as see: accuses» sue — .eeeum uce me emu—u use ac—m: uuecemce _ .mmce_uue .mcusse ecaumcuec: ceu euse ease em muees ecusueeee use see es mucueesm see emcee c. uses ueeuese _ .meeesm pecan c. ocexcez umeueeucu _ .mucueeum susse ecu mecueesm ecu mucueeem ecu susecuu use cuuzsus ceeuuesuuce unaueeucu _ =2 Esme:— .593 N umae .a ages 713 ”mesa um: es use— e—eez _ uecuuueuue ”mmc_ss unuss ee _ .mecueesm ee nous. um: _ .usu .sue_:esm m.scueeem e co sees as ac_se:e .eeus as mc_eeec .eceeesm xs ec.seusem seese seem euue mecueeum use: es use _ .usu 2.:e» usee _: ..ue es _e_euem us.:e>= s.seusm uu.=e» scese .. us__ access uses: so use _ .s.uuu ..3_ use; __.=e>. ..o=_s s=_oe uc.=e>: :.esaec pee m.seses ..u._. ecueueeseeucu ee «use: um: _. :9: ea see» euss cus: mecueeem en es heeeeuseu cuem._ _ .me_ees cuss—uc-_eesumucec geese accesses. see uses gee—e _ .mscueaum use su.x sea.— ec. uses on a... _ .eeucuusu ca _ .mmo.u use as s_eu.=a s_~. _ ueesus so see: eeea see accuse u>em _ .e.ce_=esm ause access eceee eesm es mucueeem eeue eeuueee _ .mc_>esusmes Lee mueueucue aces—m cuss c.ue Eu _ .mecueeam use us.e _ ens .ee mecueeem ass: as sense sum _ .mumece eu—sese e cus: .eeesmmeeu use ace>eue .ceecmmeee use c. mc_eeu .muaue.>ese seesemuc we seem .Eees use ee mueec seessmceu eeus e» mecueeem xeeeu _ scxezcu xcoxmm— n umee .m sues 713 5581 BJON 981181195 JBABN [LGJEH sawliawos 08110 SKPMLV .ssexmmu_u see ecusmcuece m: eeus ee mueee>eeeu ecu musue mum: susuuue use .ee .ucou us on a. 3_ cos: ecu .ucou as as m. e. 38s .ucee us es sue: eeesem cuee eeus es mucueeum asap—u susuuus use .m— .mEO—DOLQ 0>—Om OH aha! m: mucuuwu LOSUMOH ugh .Np .su_=u.ecsu usus as: mu6093um QmOSH OH flhaaflbmuwp HOLQLQuc— 0a 36: mwtuufla Lflgunoa 03h .p— .Iusu euuc es: mucueeem umese e» meeexm acesuuem musuuuu suseuua use. .e— .suse euuc es: mecueeem umess e» m—_esm ocecueme— museuus susuuuu use .o .suss euuc es: mucueeum umesu e» meeesm scenes: musuuu» susuuuu use .a .ause euuc es: mucueeum umesu ea meeesm aceeuus musuuue suseuua use .e .euu .meecems_.e .mseuuuneue euuscu>e .mmceeceuus ueuu .maeee mum: cusuuue use .e .ssezmmueu mmeumee ecu cuzmcu e» «3 sun es muecu ecu «ceeemuee msmu cusuuuu use .m .museeuue susuuue use .e .ee cue _ uusu see: us mu>_m ecu ee e» uesu su _ see: we eu>ue nus: execs uuseuua use .m .3. uuus _ cos: s_us _u=u_>_u=_ as mus—u gaseous use .u .ee es susx ecusmsuece _ puss em mucuscuemmu mceu—exu susuuuu use .— muxnouuoze s¢eeze>z_ z< 8O .ISNNUSOV “www.0um Sleaauwae S Jllux H [II S a w p S ”mesa uum e» "access umuss use. e_ee3 _ uucucueuce muee cuseuue use xucuemuum .ac.__uem ecu .mceeesz .mceeuus mu seem .m__.sm eemus c. eeus euuc cuceeesu seusa cuseusx recs mucusue «sue cuseuuu use .sce: cxe an umeen us «sue susuuua use .esaes macese sum neuzeu s.cee _ ee cu>u see: esus see seeuse us mu>ea susuuue use .mucugue as ea macesu u>_uemee muses: ce neum cusuuuu use .ssex at mueusm se asses us cus: ecuememceu me uuseuus use .aes ueue—u>u m: muue susuuue use mezcewu 92¢ zc_e<=s<>m .mauesese ucussee ee seemmeumee so» use» use—eu uusuuue use .c .A.eeu .meceeuus eunceece .mueusue ..u.ev seecmmuee use ce aaceueeueeem. see uses as use—eu suseuue use .e .mueueueseu leecmmupu ce uuueeueusue ea u—eueeeee a. ecee es: mucueaem u>_e>ce es muecu cusuuuu use .e .mecueeum susee ease eeus guesses mu>_umsee as see: we ee suuu mus cusuuuu use .m .eeeua m.s uce mu emu—e c. see: we mus cusuuus use .c .mmceeuue .msusee ecuemsuece cue u: susu em mu_es ecusueeee use you u; cus: «mu—e c. ue_e mueeuege cusuuus use .n .meeecm e—usm c. use: we muu— susuuuo use .~ .mscueeem susee es s—ue we neu_ ecu m: ea seue e» muess suseuue use .— 22 eusaez. .598 . : ~ umue .u see; E31 ssa1 810" Palel3PS Jana" [[3493 sawizawos “3150 SKOfllv "wese uuw es uxee e—eox _ uecusueucc ”wocess uwusa wuee cuseuue use Necuemucu .wwu_e c. wuue. a: wuwe suseuue use .a .eeu .sue_eesw es ce ecus w_s aceeuee .mc__.Ew Le .euus wes aceeeec as ac—seuaew seesu eeea euue us wusue uuseuus use .o .eeu ..=o» us._ _. ..u: as .u.equ ut.=°>. ..euuum us.:ee scese _: us._ wmcese wueecz Le weuw suseuue use .e .eeu ..e. usua _—.=e». ..ucue s=.ou at.=o». ..ese_s __u w.euse. a... wu=.se wsuw Luggage u e .u .ses e» s—ue ~ cus: us ee wcuuwee cuseuu» use .m .eeesew se_x ee ee mc_seec u>us sees: wac_se seesu s—ue e» uses we wu>_u suseuue use .v .w: sue: so:u_ ecu usen ee wusee Luseuue use .n ..eeecuuse w. cuseuue use .~ .s_eu_=a w...» gaseous use .— ue¢:_se .> ...eeu .wueseece .eucw .wuuue_e.esue. Lee>usus eeem so see: eeea see wesuxu we wuuem suseuue use .m .u.ce_:esw xuse wacese aceee eeew es wucueeew w__ue e—eueao uuseuue use .v .mce>ususwea see wueeeucue ace>po c. —_u ee seue we cuseuue use .n .wecueeew use wusee us use .ee wecueeew use eusx uu acmcu weua suseuue use .wuw_cu Iu—sece u cus: .~ .A.euu .sees us» u>uue cue u: cuss .eeeswwuee use c. euu cue u: suseusz .ceesewus use uw: cue u: cuss. sees us» we wueac use usus e—us we wuue suseuue use .— sozezOe toozww_ n uaue .9 aces B I BLI OGRAPHY 82 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, R. S., & Biddle, B. J. Realities of Teaching: Exploration With Video Tape. New York: Holt, 1970. Alexander, W. F. "Abstract of a Study of the Effects of Teachers' Verbal Behavior on Manipulative Skill Development." Classroom Interaction Newsletter 5(2) (1970): 46-54. Altman, H. "Teacher-Student Interaction in Inner-City and Advantaged Classes Using the Science Curriculum Improvement Study." Classroom Interaction News- letter 6(1) (1970): 5—16. Amidon, E. J., & Flanders, N. A. "The Effects of Direct and Indirect Teacher Influence on Dependent—Prone Students Learning Geometry." Journal of Educa- tional Psycholggy 52(6) (1961): 286—91. Reprinted in E. J. Amidon & J. B. Hough (eds.). Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research and Appligation. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1967. The Role of the Teacher in the Classgoom: A Manual for Understanding and Improving Teachers' Classroom Behavior. Minneapolis: Paul S. Amidon and Associates, 1963. The Role of the Teacher in the Classgoom: A Manual for Understanding and Improving Teachers' Classroom Behavior. Rev. ed. Minneapolis: Association for Productive Teaching, 1967. Amidon, E. J., & Giammatteo, M. "The Verbal Behavior of Superior Elementary Teachers." In Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research, and Application. Edited by E. J. Amidon and J. B. Hough. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1967. _ Anderson, H. H., & Brewer, Helen M. "Studies of Teachers' Classroom Personalities. I: Dominative and Socially Integrative Behavior of Kindergarten Teachers." Applied Psychology Monqgraphs 6 (1945). 83 84 Bartley, S. Howard. Perception in Everyday Life. New York: Harper & Row, 1972. Becker, W. C.; Madsen, C. H.; Arnold, Carole R.; & Thomas, D. R. "The Contingent Use of Teacher Atten- tion and Praise in Reducing Classroom Behavior Problems." Journal of Special Education 1 (1967): 287—307. Bellack, A. A.; Hyman, R. T.; Smith, F. L., Jr.; & Kliebard, H. M. The Language of the Classroom. Final Report, USOE Cooperative Research Project no. 2023. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1966. Birnbrauer, J. 8.; Wolf, M. M.; Kidder, J. D.; & Tague, Cecilia E. "Classroom Behavior of Retarded Pupils With Token Reinforcement." Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 2 (1965): 219-35. Broden, M.; Hall, R. V.; Dunlop, A.; & Clark, R. "Effects of Teacher Attention and a Token Reinforcement System in a Junior High School Special Education Class." Exceptional Children 36 (1970): 341-49. Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. "Teachers' Communication of Differential Expectations for Children's Classroom Performance: Some Behavioral Data." Journal of Educational Psycholqu 61(5) (1970): 365-74. Bushell, D. H.; Wrobel, Patricia A.; & Michaelis, Mary L. "Applying 'Group' Contingencies to the Classroom Study Behavior of Pre-School Children." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1 (1968): 55—61. Calfee, Robert, & Calfee, Kathryn Hoover. "Reading and Mathematics Observation System, RAMOS." Journal of Teacher Education 27 (Winter 1976): 323-25. Carline, J. L. "In-Service Training Re-examined." Journal of Research and Development in Education 4 (1970): 103—15. Cavanaugh, Marianne Mausegne. "Effects of a No-Grade Report Card in the Fourth and Fifth—Grade." Ph.D. dissertation, United States International Univer- sity, 1970. Dissertation Abstracts 31/05 (1970). 85 Cleminson, Robert Alan. "A Comparison of Attitudes and Achievement Between Elementary Mathematics Method Classes Receiving Instruction Through Two Differ- ent Methodologies--Teacher-Oriented Large Group Instruction and Student-Oriented Small Group Dis- cussion. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa, 1972. Dissertation Abstracts 33/07 (1972). Cook, R. E. "The Effect of Teacher Methodology Upon Certain Achievements of Students in Secondary School Biology." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa, 1967. Cornbleth, Catherine; Davis, 0. L., Jr.; & Button, C. "Teacher-Pupil Interaction and Teacher Expectations for Pupil Achievement in Secondary School Social Studies Classes." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Asso- ciation, Chicago, Illinois, 1972. Dadey, William Joseph. ”An Investigation of the Relation- ship Between Perceived Classroom Verbal Behavior of Teachers and Frequency of Discipline Problems." Ph.D. dissertation, Syracuse University, 1971. Dissertation Abstracts 32/08 (1971). Dahllof, U. S., & Lundgren, V. P. "Project Compass 23: Macro and Micro Approaches Combined for Curriculum Process Analysis: A Swedish Educational Field Pro- ject." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Min- neapolis, Minnesota, 1970. Dalton, W. B. "The Relations Between Classroom Interaction and Teacher Ratings of Pupils: An Exploration of One Means by Which a Teacher May Communicate Her Expectancies." Paper presented at the annual meet- ing of the Southeastern Psychological Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1969. Davis, Hazel. "Evolution of Current Practices in Evaluat- ing Teacher Competence." In Contemporary Research on Teacher Effectiveness. Edited by B. J. Biddle & W. J. Ellena. New York: Holt, 1964. Dunkin, Michael J., & Biddle, Bruce J. The Study of Teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1974. 86 Evertson, C. M.; Brophy, J. E.; & Good, T. L. "Communica- tion of Teacher Expectation: Second Grade." Report Series 92. Austin: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas, Austin, 1972. . "Communication of Teacher Expectation: Second Grade." Report Series 92. Austin: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, Univer- sity of Texas, Austin, 1973. Felsenthal, Helen. "Sex Difference in Teacher-Pupil Inter— action in First Grade Reading Instruction." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1970. Flanders, N. A. Analyzing TeacherlBehavior. Reading, Mass.: Addison—Wesley, 1970. Fortune, J. C.; Gage, N. L.; & Shutes, R. E. "The General- ity of the Ability to Explain." Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Amherst, Mass., 1966. Furst, Norma F. "The Effects of Training in Interaction Analysis on the Behavior of Student Teachers in Secondary Schools." In Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research and Application. Edited by E. J. Amidon & J. B. Hough. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1967a. "The Multiple Languages of the Classroom." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Ameri- can Educational Research Association, New York, 1967b. , & Amidon, E. J. "Teacher-Pupil Interaction Pat- terns in the Elementary School." In Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research and Application. Edited by E. J. Amidon & J. B. Hough. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1967. Gnagey, William J. The Psychology of Discipline in the Classroom. New York: Macmillan, 1968. Goldenberg, R. E. "Pupil Control Ideology and Teacher Influence in the Classroom." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, 1971. 87 Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. "Behavioral Expression of Teacher Attitudes." Journal of Educational Psy- chology 63 (1972): 617-24. . Looking in Classrooms. New York: Harper & Row, 1973. Gump, P. V. The Classroom Behavior Setping: Its Nature and Relation to Student Behavior. Final Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of Research, Depart- ment of Health, Education and Welfare, 1967. Gunnison, J. P. "An Experiment to Determine the Effect of Changing Teacher Classroom Behavior Through Train- ing of Student-Teachers in the Use of Flanders' Interaction Analysis System." Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, 1968. Dissertation Abstracts 29 (1968). Hardy, Robert Earl. "The Effects of Praise on Selected Variables in Secondary School Classrooms: A Beha- vior Modification Approach." Ph.D. dissertation, Western Michigan University, 1971. Dissertation Abstracts 32/10 (1971). Harris, A. J.; Morrison, C.; Server, B. L.; & Gold, L. "Continuation